PC Bioshock Specs annouced

[rajputwarrior]

your 6800 will play the game.... so what's the point of your post?

[EddieS]

after seeing the spec i am glad that i can play it on PC

[Ayepecks]

I'm sorry but I don't see any humor in a poor sap who cannot or does not want to understand simple linguistics. You've repeated that a number of times now btw.

I answered all of your questions, you ignored them as I've now stated two or three times. Are you dyslexic? Seriously. I used DX10.1 as an analogy to the argument, you do know what an analogy is right? I never made any claim. FYI regarding the function of DX10.1 straight from the horses mouth.

Source

Translation: Unlike DX9, games that make use of DX10.1 will actually run on DX10 hardware but you won't get whatever is associated with the new features in 10.1.

Is that good enough for you...pal? Obviously Microsoft agrees with me and considers games that will not run at all on hardware that doesn't specifically support a subset function of the rendering API flawed, and oh my, maybe that is why I am a bit peeved at the situation.

Ah just like a child to resort to personal attacks and furthur sarcasm, there's that amazing wit of yours again. You are the first to equate a changed quote to an immature teenager as far as I'm aware. Wow, I change one word as it relates to my reponse and suddenly I'm immature. Now that makes me laugh. :laugh: The pot meets kettle statement applies perfectly, you've merely convinced yourself otherwise. ATI didn't make the game, 2K did, yet you blame ATI for software they had no part in simply because that software happens to make use of the kind of products ATI is involved with. You are, in fact, similar to a laywer who is arguing in favor of the guilty party while pointing the finger at someone who had already completed the product for which you assess blame a period prior to the start of development for the software. :rolleyes:

Answer: Graphics companies start development on their hardware many years before the public ever hears about them. The R420/480 architecture (based on the now five year old R300) was designed and completed far earlier than that of the Xenos, which was a completely different design from the ground up and with a console in mind, meaning built to be as future proof as possible for the time and proprietary in nature. I already explained why ATI didn't add the functionality to the R420, go back and read again if you're looking for an answer there.

The rest of your blather is inconsequential and irrelevant. Factual data shows SM3 is not a standard years later, meaning ATI was correct in their original assessment and statement; a couple exceptions here and there does not change that. Furthur, the reason behind its minimal use is precisely due to market availability and the negligible differences between the two shader models.

I don't intend to waste any furthur of my time trying to explain my position relative to someone who simply does not concieve of it.

Oh ANova, again with vast accusations of me acting like a "child" and accusing me of personal attacks when you simply don't seem to comprehend that this is a two-way street you're partaking in... if you want to accuse me of circular logic and personal attack, please read your posts again and tell me exactly how it is that your posts aren't any of those things. I don't think you comprehend that the comments I made were a direct response to the personal attacks you made on me.

And your claim of DirectX 10 and its future versions was that it wasn't backwards compatible. Don't try and sidestep the issue. Here is what you said in regards to DirectX 10.1 after I stated it was backwards compatible:

Oh clearly. :rolleyes:

And here is what you originally stated:

I see you have an 8800 GTS, your argument is akin to blaming nvidia now for not supporting DX10.1 because of a game that will come out 2 or 3 years from now. Utterly ridiculous.

So, tell me, ANova: how were you right? Microsoft has stated DirectX 10.1 is backwards compatible. Don't try and act like your article proves you were correct -- it proves the exact opposite. Translation: You don't know what you're talking about. You keep claiming that I don't know anything about technology as if you have some monopoly on all technology, yet it is clearly you who doesn't know what he's talking about at all.

And, no, the pot meet kettle statement does not apply at all. Please look up the meaning of a "pot meet kettle" statement. For that to have any validity I would have to be doing the exact same thing you are. I'm not blaming multiple sources like you, I'm blaming one: ATI. The quote you made indicated that I was blaming multiple sources, as that is what I accused you of (blaming nVidia and blaming 2K Australia). If you wanted to make a valid "pot meet kettle" statement you could have quoted something else. Your scenario is nothing like the one I posted, but good try, pal.

And if ATI was correct for not supporting shader model 3.0, quit bitching about it! If they're correct, it doesn't matter that you can't run the game, because they made the right choice in rushing their card to the market. And a console GPU isn't anything like a PC one? Oh, that must be why the Xenos and current ATI line of GPUs share a common architecture, right? :rolleyes: "Furthur," (as you say) if there is a reason why ATI didn't want to add it, please tell it to me. They could have added it, but they didn't. You did not explain that in any single one of your posts, so don't claim you did.

[NightCrawler.]

Dude whens the fight gonna end, just set up a meeting spot somewhere and get it over and done with - through PM.

[ANova]

I don't intend to waste any furthur of my time trying to explain my position relative to someone who simply does not concieve of it.